Mountain Bear

I totally respect your opinion, but surely it's a question of the amount and the need? If someone had offered us £100m in February for the perpetual naming rights for the stadium and we could have avoided the living nightmare of a summer we suffered, you'd have taken it, correct?

You'll note, by the way, that in litigation, getting to the truth isn't a high priority it would appear.....

Interesting excerpt below from a 2004 interview with Rod Mckenzie of Harper MacLeod, taken from the Firm magazine. Gives a good insight into the guys modus operandi and how he might have approached the Rangers assignment. The piece was titled "Natural born killer"... He says: “Typically, in a litigation, I will make a very early decision about strategy for the case. I think, ‘This is how I will get a result for my client in this case.’ That strategy can involve a number of different elements. It can involve issues of fact, where we may have very strong evidence of fact or good documentation. It could involve a legal point, where we isolate that point and set out to get a victory on that alone. It could also be that the other side is weak, either because it is not well represented or because it hasn’t got much money. It can sometimes be because the other party needs an early settlement as they need the cash quickly to move their business on. Occasionally you play out certain cases in the glare of publicity but you only use the media to win the right sorts of case. “You pull all of those things together and then ask what it is that the client actually wants to achieve here. That must always be your primary driver. For most business people, they want to be able to go away and make money; they don’t want their resources to be diverted into a large litigation that will be drawn out over a long period of time. “The critical thing about winning litigation is to have a strategy and to drive forward with that. That does not mean to drive forward blindly and if new things turn up in the case you ignore them just because they don’t fit with your predefined strategy. It is easy in the early days to get a bit woods and trees about litigation, as some solicitors think that they have to get this statement, that statement, this documentation from him, that documentation from them and so on. You have to stop and think, ‘What are we trying to achieve here?’” I wonder who he sees the client being in our case?

Rightly or wrongly, he was allowed to start this season and to sack him now, having only had his squad together for 3 weeks, would be perverse IMO.

I also noticed that we're still in 3 cup competitions and haven't lost a game yet this season. I've said I'd give him until Christmas, Would you sack him today?

Binning managers at the least sign of trouble is not the Rangers way. McCoist deserves a reasonable amount of time under "normal" conditions to get his new team playing the way he wants. Above all, there is absolutely no need to act now (undefeated, 1 point off the top etc.). If we're not comfortably out in front by Christmas and playing decent football, then it'll be time for this discussion.

"For the past three and a half years I have been singled out and subjected to an extraordinary Orwellian process by an organisation that acts as lawmaker, judge, jury, appeal court and executioner. No, not the SFA, but the FSA, who have today fined ex HBOS banker, Peter Cummings £500k. Same initials, same approach to "justice".

As the club has declined to participate, I wonder if the ex-players will do likewise?

I agree, although he quotes the original Tribuneral's "nearly as bad as match fixing" finding which referred to withholding PAYE under Craig Whyte and his failure to disclose he'd been disqualified as a director, rather than any EBT related issues. It worries me when people get the details wrong - makes me think they haven't done their homework properly elsewhere too.

Think we'll need to agree to disagree on this one DA. If he's not even that good at heading, why did we use all the long diagonals to him when he was out wide? Don't get me wrong, he's no Messi, but for me at least the other personal attributes he brings more than make up for any on-field shortcomings.

26 goals in all competitions from 180 appearences, the majority of which have been as a holding midfielder, with some out wide, some at centre half and some up top. Doesn't sound that bad to me.

DA, That's fantastically harsh on Jig. He's a decent player who rarely lets anyone down, regardless of the position he's played in. But quite apart from that, he's shown qualities on and off the park which I think make him a worthy Rangers captain; loyalty, commitment, leadership and a winning mentality. I wouldn't want everyone in the team to play like him, but for where we are at the moment he's perfect and the obvious choice.

A few more faces would have been nice, but with limited budget, I'm glad they've gone for quality rather than quantity.

Lots of positive momentum for CG at the moment and I do like the way he goes about things. I think if he's suitably robust in defence of the dual contract accusations, then most bears will buy into him fully. Those titles don't mean anything to him, emotionally or financially, but I'm sure he's sharp enough to realise that it would be the most effective way to win the hearts and minds of the support. The one area where I'm still a bit wary, is his business plan. Last year we were running a £10m deficit because we didn't have a run in Europe. Although we've lost a lot of big earners, there are still half a dozen 1st team players on their old contracts, our overheads are probably similar and ticket income will be down at least 30%, because of the price reductions alone. I'm not sure whether that all adds up for this season. Perhaps he's banking on league reconstruction next year?

A great night all round. We may not do walking away, but we certainly do queuing up!

Hey mate, tomorrow's a new day - hope you feel differently in the morning.

I came home this evening to find my ST renewal form; £289 for the Club Deck (CD1 AA). I decided to pay for it online, only to find there it was £303 + £5 web fee. Then I found that I couldn't add my son's season ticket to the same basket even though they were both on the same paper renewal form as usual (two different Rangers numbers). I logged in again, this time using the Rangers number for my son's ticket to find that was £83 instead of the £76 on the renewal letter, plus another £5 web fee of course - a grand total of £31 extra if I want to pay online. I'm sure the price differential is just a cock-up, rather than a conscious policy, but it doesn't fill me full of confidence for their chances of getting the ticketing right in such a short window. I might just pay the extra online and treat it as a donation rather than take my chances in the pile of business reply envelopes they have to deal with. Anyone else had similar issues?

He played a 4:3:3 formation today, which is what you advocate isn't it?

If nothing else, the least Ally's conduct over the past 6 months has earned him is some time. Time to build a squad, introduce youth players and settle on a style of play that works not just in SFL 3, but as we climb the divisions. We can afford that time, let's give it to him eh?

The hypocrisy and sanctimonious sh*te we've had to endure from Celtic fans regarding the hospitals our taxes could have paid for, cheating etc, is irritating beyond belief, but there's something deeply distasteful about revelling in innocent childrens' suffering just to hit back at your detractors. Nevertheless, the question "what's worse, participating in an aggressive tax avoidance scheme, or protecting a pedophile?" has occurred to me before and I can understand why others bring it up. It's just not something I'm prepared to use in football debates.

If it helps 50% of the population feel more engaged with football as a whole and Rangers in particular, then it will pay back many times over whatever minuscule investment we make towards running female teams.

Disagree completely. He's given us an assurance that if we continue to back the club (presumably in similar numbers to last year, but admitedly he didn't specify a number), then there will be no redundancies. If we are so cynical that we choose to provide less support than previously, purely on the basis of unsubstantiated rumour and innuendo, then it will be our fault. On the other hand, if anyone can show me evidence that Whyte is involved, or that cash is being syphoned off for unexplained purposes, or that he's failing to deliver on substantive promises, then I'll happily join the campaign to starve him out. I'm just not prepared to take that risk with my Club's future, or people's livlihoods and I suspect I'm in the majority on that.

It's from the prospectus Green issued to investors. There's a thread from 16th July that has the whole document pasted, but the relevant excerpt is: - In the very unlikely event a CVA is not agreed by creditors, the holding company will buy the same assets from Rangers plc for £5.5m - Rangers would potentially be precluded from European competition for up to 3 years -Advantages to alternative scenario: - Salaries could be reduced by c. £7m as there would be less requirement to retain star players -Anticipated pre tax profits of £2m every year for the next 3 years - Less pressure on working capital

And if Brown keeps on telling people not to buy season tickets without producing any evidence for his claims, he'll deserve it. Buying single tickets is all very well and good, but it doesn't help cash flow or business forecasts and will make the recovery job harder.

I'm in the CD (also a bondholder) and my seat was circa £470 last year (don't have the exact figure). There are a number of price bands and I'm towards the rear, so others may be more expensive. I suspect £350 would get you a pretty decent seat for this year though.